i think this thread is rather fascinating from a psychological standpoint. lets just sit back and observe the indisputable facts. first of all the op asked about 4...qb6 in the french advance. the op did not specify what whites 4th move was an in fact gave a strange 4th move. poucin focused on the exact strange line the op gave. i took a more generalized approach stating how qb6 is not rare in the french because of pressure on d4..but i stated that whether qb6 is good or not obviously must depends on the specific position and the fact the op did not provide a 4th move from white shows he isnt thibking of specific positions. i offered one variation where i know qb6 is a good and logical move...and i felt it illustrated well the way black can force white to clarify his intentions by putting pressure on d4 while also how taking on b2 may be unwise...this was apparently a terrible thing for me to do and provoked outcries from pfren who i suppose didnt notice that the qb6 move in that line does in fact pressure d4...and his attitude was assisted by by various irrelevant minions who i suppose dont think i might know that the tarrasch is not the advance....whatever...all of it was unecessary and useless. meanwhile poor xplayer takes issue with this trolling from pfren and most unfortunately for xplayer he seems to misunderstand pfrens comments relating to poucin...which people could have just ignored and let go and dealt with the more relevant fact which is that pfren and smyslovs attitude is very negative and unnecessary and actually quite wrong. but people preferred to jump all over xplayer with cavailing details of how he could misunderstand the language used by pfren. now we cant speak about qb6 in the french anymore now this is a circus of petty bickering. where did it start? pfren.
After a few days of people saying my English is terrible, My translation is terrible, and my understanding is terrible.
Those people have came up with phrases which translates what Pfren comment said below:
4...Qb6 looks ill timed to me after Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3.
The text in green is what Pfren originally said.
A few commenters interpreted the text in green with below statements:
"4...Qb6 looks ill-timed to me after [I saw] Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3".He was saying that poucin's move, far from being bad, is actually the reason 4...Qb6 is not the correct move.
Now lets take the first sentence from above.
"4...Qb6 looks ill-timed to me after [I saw] Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3".In the above sentence if we wanted to flip the subject and predicate of the sentence around how would we do it?
Poucin's suggested move 5.Nc3 makes the move 4...Qb6 look ill to Pfren.
Now take out the moves!
Pouncin's suggested move is making Pfren Ill.
What did I say?
Pouncin move is making him Ill?
In the above sentence the only thing they can critize me on is my use of the word "him"
Since it could cause confusion on who "him" is.
However, The "him" I am refering to in this sentence is Pfren.
At which case I could of wrote the sentence like below:
Pouncin move is making Pfren Ill.
I guess I do not see how I am misinterpreting what has been said by flipping the sentence around.
What the hell? How did "ill-timed" become "ill" in your interpretation?
from a humanistic side attacking xplayer is simply wrong. its not making any positive difference in the word. and from a logical standpoint your argument is totally invalid anyway....if you seriously think you are trying to call attention to something important. please. this is known as a case study logical fallacy...xplayer is one person from the us who misunderstood the meaning of one post? therefore us education system is terrible? it does not follow. get smarter please.
Huh?
X_Player's posts have been long-winded drivel. Your one post of substance that I saw had nothing to do with the question, but about another French position involving Qb6.
While I'm no fan of personal attacks, I haven't seen anything from either of you that is germane and useful to this topic.
obviously not true. you are a fan of personal attacks. and you are a little bit stupid as well because you cant grasp how speaking of qb6 in the french in general could possibly be relevant to qb6 in a particular position. i made one simple innocent post and then was forced to make posts to clarify why the hell i made that post...which should not have been confusing to anyone with a brain...and then i felt it was necessary to call attention to the immature behavior coming from pfren and you and others because really people should recognize this. beyond ruining this thread you guys make this forum a negative experience in general. because of your love of personal attacks...which you laughably claim to not be a fan of.
Well said FOS
The OP of this thread was asking about the move Qb6 specifically.
FOS diagram addressed the idea of Qb6.
The OP was not trying to dwell on white's 4th move.
The OP was wanting feed back on the idea of 4...Qb6 itself.
As it turned out the move 4...Qb6 was a bad move after seeing whites move 4.Be3.
However, If white's 4th move was 4.c3 the move 4...Qb6 is playable.
For further vindication post #19 by the OP himself settles this issue.
Okay, I did not intend for this to turn out into a debate or anything, it was just a question on whether..qb6 is logicsl and safe or not.
JSYK, ..be3 is not my line nor recommended choice; it was just a move I threw out, and obviously there are better choices.
Qg4 also happens to be another line I'm studying. Any ideas there? :)